Talk:Market America/Archives/2016

Sources

The implication that Market America is a Multi Level Marketing company is incorrect. MLM literally stands for multiple percentages of pay, or tiered percentages that typically start low and get higher as people are recruited. The percentage only increases contingent upon performance. Whereby the percentage for vertical marketing in Market America is 100%, and remains as such regardless of performance. Johne1983 (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC) I;m not going to waste my time arguing about this.

That definition of MLM is not consistent with that of reliable sources. Wikipedia goes by such sources, and strongly prefers independent sources to help provide a neutral point of view. Grayfell (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

One thing that's worth noting about the citations being used to support the belief that Market America is a multi-level marketing company is that citation 5 is really not as "unambigous" in its declaration that user LuckyLouie claimed in his April 20 reversion. It states, "Market America was founded in 1992 by JR Ridinger based on the multilevel marketing (MLM) business model...MLM is used by Avon, Amway, Tupperware. But what makes Market America different?

"In 2011, it acquired SHOP.com to become the first to integrate the internet, e-commerce and social media to create a new business model to challenge Amazon.com."

I don't feel this is asserting what those intent on keeping this citation claim it is asserting, and at the very least, it's not "unambiguous" as was claimed. It definitely seems possible that Market America has implemented a business model which is different from the MLM structure based upon what is noted in that citation, especially because Amway, Tupperware and Avon are still at their roots very low-tech businesses, and Market America has positioned itself a very tech-focused company with the shop.com acquisition. The nature of the MLM itself is a bit of a dinosaur, and that doesn't feel consistent with Market America's recent marketplace ventures. Mots justes (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

That Market America is a MLM is supported by multiple sources. The one you mention is only one of them. Additionally, statements in the lead can be supported by sources in the body, because the lead summarizes existing content.

That out of the way, the sources is a bit odd. Why would a reputable academic book use ® symbols? Why are celebrity names, like Kim Kardashian, in bold? Even for an introductory textbook, that seem strangely condescending, but I'm not sure how much all that actually matters. SAGE is a reputable publisher, and the author is a recognized expert. The content appears to be derived by the author from the company's own material. So with that in mind, what, exactly, does "...first to integrate the internet, e-commerce and social media..." mean? That is such an absurd claim that it needs to be unpacked and explained before being taken at face value. Internet and e-commerce are already integrated by definition, and social media has been part of that for years, as well, starting with Amazon.com themselves. If Lussier has looked at Market America's own material and came to the conclusion that they are based on multi-level marketing, than so be it. If the difference is about technology, than how does that relate to the MLM model? Many MLMs have used or tried to use the Internet in various ways, BurnLounge being an infamous example, so calling MLM a dinosaur is original research, which is not usable here. Grayfell (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

"±NOT a multilevel marketing company", and semi-protection

In this edit, some IP adds the word "NOT" (so capitalized), to result in:

Market America is NOT a multilevel marketing company

-- for which the former reference, "BloombergBusinessweek", is identified elsewhere as

The references for which are:

This editor is thus making three assertions:

1. Market America is not a multilevel marketing company.
2. The article "Market America's American Dream Machine" says that Market America is not a multilevel marketing company.
3. The book Management Fundamentals: Concepts, Applications, and Skill Development says that Market America is not a multilevel marketing company.

I cannot immediately check the veracity of the third of these assertions. (Google Books isn't currently showing the page -- not to me, anyway.) As for the second, it's false. Worse, the IP has blatantly made it false. For here's what "Market America's American Dream Machine" actually says:

Market America is the latest and most sophisticated incarnation of multilevel marketing, that controversial business model that exploits the get-rich-quick dreams of every red-blooded American.

It appears that the IP has falsified what the first sentence of our article says. I have therefore removed "NOT".

Since these apparent falsifications have come from various IP numbers and have been repeated, I'm about to s-protect the article. If Management Fundamentals: Concepts, Applications, and Skill Development says something different, and/or if other reliable sources say that this isn't an MLM company, please discuss below. -- Hoary (talk) 08:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Our best WP:INDY sources support describing Market America as an MLM. I imagine it's hard to recruit people so one can move up the Market America pyramid if accurate information describing the operation as an MLM is available on Wikipedia. Which is why this article has a history of IP's dropping by to remove this information from the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2016

Please change "Market America is a multilevel marketing company[4][5] that describes itself as a product brokerage and internet marketing company." to "Market America has been classified as a multilevel marketing company that describes itself as a product brokerage and internet marketing company. Some of its features in business building have certain similarities with multilevel recruiting. The company claims its distinction from traditional MLMs with an alleged smaller distribution chain than others requiring extensive linkages and hierarchies leading to traditional pitfalls per their claims[9]. Currently, Market America has on-boarded new e-commerce platforms: affiliate.shop.com, developer.shop.com, [4] and www.shop.com/shoplocal. It would seem they are aiming to reach into the domain of local businesses. When looking at the tools and suites promoted by the company, it has strong similarities to a 'BPaaS' or Business Process as a Service[1][2] also known as cloud computing #REDIRECT Business Process Management [5] which is a cloud service model [6]. The Market America distributorship and back office are provisioned to buy-in clients for smaller overhead costs just as well as Microsoft Office 365[7] and Adobe Designer Suite[8] which are BPaaS cloud architectures." because this is updated information about the company according to the specified sources.e

Sources: 1. CompTIA Cloud+ Certification Study Guide by Stammer, Nate; Wilson, Scott; 2013;

2. What is BPaaS - http://searchfinancialapplications.techtarget.com/definition/BPaaS-Business-Process-as-a-Service

3. What is business process as a service "For Dummies" - http://www.dummies.com/programming/cloud-computing/hybrid-cloud/what-is-business-process-as-a-service-bpaas-in-cloud-computing/

4. APN network - http://affiliate.shop.com

5. http://bpm.com/what-is-bpm

6. Channeladvisor "Market America engaging cloud strategies" - http://www.channeladvisor.com/market-america-shop-com-engages-channeladvisors-managed-services-team-to-enhance-its-digital-marketing-strategy/

7. Microsoft Office 365 Cloud Solution - https://products.office.com/en-us/business/enterprise-cloud

8. Adobe Desiger Suite http://www.adobe.com/creativecloud.html Xavylon (talk) 23:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

9. Unfranchise Manifesto by J.R. Ridinger - http://www.unfranchisemanifesto.com/

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Proposed changes contain unsourced and unattributed editorializing and euphemisms. Grayfell (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Reference specifically the unsourced and unattributed editorializing and euphemisms please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xavylon (talk • contribs) 03:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

First, when you change your proposal AFTER it has been responded to it creates confusion. My response was to your first suggestion, not your revised one. This distinction is no longer clear. When this kind of thing is repeated, it gives the impression of active deception. Please just respond, don't revise. See WP:TPG.

As for the proposals themselves:

1. "...has been classified as..." only makes sense if it is intended to undermine and imply doubt about content, which is WP:WEASEL wording. If it's been classified as an MLM, why would we not just say it "is a multi-level marketing company"?
2. Most of those sources don't actually mention Market America, so their use is in appropriate and indicates WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. "It would seem they are aiming to reach into the domain of local businesses" is also an example of original research. How does it "seem" that way? According to who? Phrases such as (but not limited to) "certain similarities" are likewise too vague to be meaningful, and would need to be supported and contextualized by reliable, independent sources to be other than original research.
3. The phrase "...has on-boarded new e-commerce platforms..." is an extreme and frankly insipid example of WP:BUZZWORDS.

I think that's enough for now. Grayfell (talk) 03:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)